Share This:

Imagine walking down a busy street. You see people you’ve never met hustle to and fro. They’re going to work, school, and social gatherings. Some faces are smiling; others, not so much. You don’t know them and they don’t know you.

Now, imagine seeing digits carefully placed above their heads. When you look at these digits you judge someone beyond their race, ethnicity, age, gender, potential sexual identification. These numbers allow you to see someone’s annual income, and even their net worth. Suddenly, that man with ripped jeans looks a lot more impressive with a staggering 7 digits above his head, doesn’t he? Or, how about the mother with two kids followed along by a 4-digit number?

Would you worry more? Would you care more? How would you evaluate disparities?

Traditionally, annual incomes are closely guarded secrets. Nobody knows what their neighbors make most of the time. Unless you work for a public, governmental organization that requires public disclosures, annual income is between you and your employer.

Even more difficult to ascertain is net worth. As a total of all assets — liquid and non-liquid — it can be challenging to calculate. Net worth represents a total wealth after taxes that’s yours to keep and grow and spend as you see fit.

Aside from the aforementioned exception for public employees, income and net worth tend to stay private. Broaching the subject in certain company can seem gruff, rude, or downright hostile. To talk about these numbers is to admit something… personal.

It’s as if net worth represents our worth.

If you were to ask your neighbors what their incomes and net worth was, how might they react? How about your friends? How about your acquaintances? And perhaps most tellingly, how would your parents react?

Likely, there would be some awkward reactions, defensiveness, shame, and dread about talking in depth about digits. Those in poverty might exhibit the same emotions as those who are wealthy. Talking about money management and worth are inexplicably tied to self-worth and self-identity.

The consequences of this hush-hush mentality have been grave. To publicly acknowledge may seem novel, but silence harbors injustices and prejudices. And that’s why we must throw open the door to personal vaults and share.

Take the gender gap injustice: women make 77 cents for every $1 men make. There’s nothing fair about it. If we treated, understood, and respected women as equals, this pay gap wouldn’t exist. Women also deserve paid maternity leave, child care assistance, and flexible health insurance options should they be single parents. Each of these failures in assistance perpetuate gender inequities.

Another population that suffers greatly for economic privacy are African Americans. In 2011, black workers made an average (median) household income of $39,760. Whites took home a staggering $67,175 in comparison. Racial inequality has been around for hundreds of years, but that doesn’t mean we should accept this status quo. Again, various factors hold African Americans back: high policing in black neighborhoods, judicial policies that prejudicially penalize non-violent drug offenders, and poorer educational opportunities in predominantly minority communities.

Between communities, tremendous per capita incomes exist. You can be born and stay in poverty — all as a consequence of your birthplace. In Washington, D.C., the average per capita income is $45,290. But in poverty stricken post-boom-and-bust Gary, Indiana, each resident makes an average $15,764. While these average incomes help show broader income inequality, they’re depersonalized. You can’t see the individual and how that one person must live.

Annual income and net worth become two of the best measurements for the consequences of these hurtful, unequal policies. By failing to openly discuss these issues, we fail every disadvantaged group.

By opening up our wallets for analysis, we may squirm and squeal. It’s uncomfortable to admit our total salary and savings because we think it says something about who we are; frankly, it does. But there’s a chance that if we admit our incomes and net worth, we’re providing those looking for equality an opportunity to stake their claim.

Oh, lest some commenter call me a hypocrite, I make about $20,000 per year.

Share This:

Every week I like to feature a few frugal articles that caught my eyes. Curl up in your favorite reading nook and enjoy. Hopefully these encourage you to live frugal lives!

Where the poor and rich really spend their money by Max Ehrenfreund
As the gap in income and wealth widens between the rich and poor, clear patterns in spending behaviors have emerged. Noticeably, the poor are far more likely to spend income on housing as a percentage, when compared to middle and higher income groups. The effects on eating habits can also be massive, as “the poor and the middle class all spend about 19 percent their grocery budget on fruits and vegetables, about 22 percent on meats, and about 13 percent on breads and cereals.”

Gravity Payments CEO Will Live on $70,000 Worker Wage, Thinks His Life Will Be Luxe Enough by Susanna Kim
Dan Price isn’t like many CEOs. His internal compass seems to point him towards spending, owning, and making less money. Despite being the CEO of a successful credit processing company, he decided to take a large salary cut to model strong leadership. Price makes it clear that he doesn’t want overpaid CEOs to take his place someday, while jeopardizing regular employee’s positions. What a model for the entire corporate sector.

ALDI Is A Growing Menace To America’s Grocery Retailers by The Hartman Group
ALDI’s stores serve a different clientele and follow a unique business model. The market places food palettes in the center or aisles, they don’t usually take credit transactions, and often have only one brand to choose from. ALDI’s is also the parent company for Trader Joe’s. All of these factors combine into healthy savings for shoppers.

How to plan for retirement by Joshua Fields Millburn
Joshua tackles an important money issue for many: saving enough for retirement. He takes all his experience with simplicity and minimalism, and bundles it into a helpful guide for the masses. The important variable that he doesn’t acknowledge, unfortunately, is that how-to guides don’t apply to everyone. Retirement savings can frequently be a luxury in a world bogged down by student loan debt. Either way, Joshua offers some sound tips for starting your nest egg!

Share This:

It’s time to destroy the 40-hour workweek. Photo: Joe Loong/Flickr

Our American economy needs you to work nothing less than 40 hours per week. The message is simple: earn more, collect belongings, and don’t stop until you retire/die. Unless you meet this expectation, be prepared to be called lazy and unproductive — stuck in the unfortunate world of lower and middle incomes. And if you’re not doing something that makes more money than your neighbor, you ought to think about changing careers.

McMansions, vehicles, and stores grow. In turn, our consumption escalates. We need more to fill our bigger homes; otherwise, they feel empty. Meanwhile, our wallets are stripped and we maintain this cycle of work and near poverty — just getting by. Despite going through a horrific “great recession” over the last few years, companies have continued to report record revenue and profits. The business world is clearly benefiting from our workweek and continued spend.

This current system is predicated on infinite growth. If you’re not continually benefiting from pay raises and getting promoted, you’re not doing it right. Since the Industrial Revolution, we haven’t stopped to seriously question what we’ve created and amassed. Like worker zombies, it’s hard not to see the countless hours we put into companies — all so that we reach financial independence.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania during the steel boom. Clouds of ash engulfed the city continually.

Unfortunately, infinite growth has two awful consequences: unstable population and climate change. The world population was about 300 million in 1000 AD. The Industrial Revolution sparked atmospheric population increases. Now, the U.S. alone has around 300 million citizens. There are over 7 billion people on the planet, and that number is rapidly increasing.

As we developed more efficient means to produce and manufacture goods, fossil fuel use increased and never stopped. The delicate balance of carbon dioxide in the air shifted and it devastated our climate. We are suffering from an inescapable greenhouse gas effect where the temperature of Earth rises and natural disasters worsen. Even when faced with this dire news, we make a societal shrug and continue to pump out record amounts of oil and coal to feed growth.

The market demands this. If you watch the stock market, you’ll see investors and institutions pressure companies for constant revenue growth. Stagnation is likened to the death of a company — maintenance isn’t enough. We have a myopic economic policy of long-term instability for short-term riches. Profits over people is a rewarded mantra on Wall Street, and it leads to absurd business practices that hurt their employees and our environment further.

We live in a world where the Koch brothers are lobbying to tax alternative energy sources, Microsoft stock (MSFT) increases when they announce thousands in job cuts, and corporate executives are paid, on average, 350-to-1 for regular employees. Incontrovertible evidence suggests that we are causing irreparable harm to our environment, while we maintain this status quo.

It’s time to break out of this cyclical destruction. We need to find another method to contribute to society in a positive manner — one that doesn’t cause harm to future generations and massive environmental diaspora.

“The eight-hour workday developed during the industrial revolution in Britain in the 19th century, as a respite for factory workers who were being exploited with 14- or 16-hour workdays.

As technologies and methods advanced, workers in all industries became able to produce much more value in a shorter amount of time. You’d think this would lead to shorter workdays.

But the 8-hour workday is too profitable for big business, not because of the amount of work people get done in eight hours (the average office worker gets less than three hours of actual work done in 8 hours) but because it makes for such a purchase-happy public. Keeping free time scarce means people pay a lot more for convenience, gratification, and any other relief they can buy. It keeps them watching television, and its commercials. It keeps them unambitious outside of work.”

“Municipal staff in Gothenburg will act as guinea pigs in a proposed push for six-hour workdays with full pay, with hopes that it will cut down on sick leave, boost efficiency, and ultimately save Sweden money.”

See, the Swedes understand that by cutting back, their employees will be more productive with their time and suffer from less burnout.Even in capitalistic America, the founders of Google are beginning to advocate for reductions in our workweek. In the following video, the tech titans are advocating for this change for a more productive future.

There’s a tragic irony about this whole problem: we developed technologies, vehicles, and our massive global economy to increase productivity. But who’s really benefited from these changes except a select few? Most workers are working more than ever, despite record productivity and profitability. We haven’t invented and invested in a technology that truly eased our workweeks.

The system is broken and skewed. We have an opportunity to respect our fellow humans and environment — for generations to come. Perhaps it’s time to shift forward, and evolve towards empathy and positive economic models. Perhaps it’s time to emphasize healthy companies over exorbitant profits. Infinite growth is not sustainable on a planet with finite resources. Let’s throwaway these antiquated economic ideals.

Share This:

Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report spotlighted a KFC employee, Naquasia LeGrand, who has been advocating for a higher minimum wage. Ms. LeGrand works 15 hours a week at $8/hour. She’d work more, but she can’t – they won’t let her. She’d get another job, but KFC doesn’t schedule out – she can’t reliably predict her schedule.

She’s asking for executives to share the profits with employees on the front lines. For perspective, the CEO of Yum brands (conglomerate that owns KFC), David Novak, received $11.3 million in 2012.

Recently, I’ve been talking about income inequality, and how stagnant wages and food stamps are a consequence of executive excesses. This interview brilliantly captivates the struggle of minimum wage employees better than any article I could ever write.